Patterson denied reason for removal as at-will employee
By Ava Uhlack, April 28, 2026
Former Ombudsman at Cal Poly Pomona Mark Patterson revealed he was given no insight as to why the office was closed or that he was terminated from the university.
According to Patterson, he had gone to the Office of the President Feb.13 to meet with Vice President and Chief of Staff at CPP Nicole Hawkes under the impression it was a meeting to update Hawkes on the progress of the Ombudsman Office, but he was met with a notice of removal instead.
This happened two months prior to the Office of the President’s notice about the closure, which was revealed in university-wide email April 14.
“While the pause in operations occurred earlier this spring, I have been in active dialogue with the Academic Senate, Deans and others, and I am continuing to gather insights from our community to inform our next steps,” Interim President Iris Levine said via email.
According to Patterson, he was an “at will” employee, and the university exercised its right to no longer retain him. When he inquired as to more reasoning, Patterson said Assistant Vice President and Director of Employee and Labor Relations Yasmin Iltchi reiterated he was an “at will” employee and declined to share further information.
An “at will” employee refers to an employee not serving a probationary period, but they do not receive any sort of permanent status, according to Section 42723, Subsection A of the Management Personnel Plan within the California Code of Regulations Title Five.
Essentially, at will employees are not guaranteed their positions, and the university has the right to remove any person from their position at any time.
According to Section 42723, Subsection E of the Management Personnel Plan within the California Code of Regulations Title Five, employees are required to be given at least three months’ notice prior to termination or be given corresponding salary for the respective three-month period.
In this case, the university chose to do the latter, according to Patterson.
According to Patterson, he made a presentation to the Academic Senate Feb. 4 about the Ombuds office and its function. He said he was surprised when he lost his job less than 10 days later.
“I am trying to help faculty directly get other faculty and students comfortable and able to use ombuds,” Patterson said. “They deserve to know how things are going, and it’s an important partnership in promoting the function as a resource. That was the goal.”
According to Patterson, he was the only person running the office, including but not limited to community outreach, holding sessions and handling data filing.
“If it takes a while and careful means to set up an ombuds office, you can’t just stop and expect people to get the same support from other things that are not set up to do that,” Patterson said.
According to Cynthia Peters, Director of Media Relations at CPP, the university is in the process of assessing the model utilized during fall 2025 to provide the most impactful services, and they cannot comment on individual personnel matters for privacy reasons.
“If I had done something wrong or was doing a really bad job that was causing problems, I would like to be able to address that,” Patterson said. “The university seems to have just lost its patience and just pulled the plug.”
At this time, there has been no official announcement as to the status of the office or any other advancements to be made moving forward.
Feature image courtesy of Mark Patterson
